Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Five10Twelve Limited Marlowe Innovation Centre, Marlowe Way
Ramsgate, Kent, CT12 6FA
The Rt Hon Grant Shapps
The Secretary of State for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR
United Kingdom
BY EMAIL:
31 January 2020
Dear Sir
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION
We write in response to the Secretary of State’s Request for Comments and Further Information of
17 January 2020 specifically at Paragraph 14.
“The Secretary of State invites the Applicant and other Interested Parties to comment on
revised wording in relation to requirement 19 (airport-related commercial facilities) for
inclusion in any DCO that might be granted in due course: “Works Nos 15,16 and 17 must
only be developed and used where the local planning authority has agreed in writing that
those works have a direct relationship to and support the operation of Works Nos. 1 to 11 and
13”.”
1. Five10Twelve Limited is an Interested Party.
2. Thanet District Council’s (“TDC”) Local Impact Report at Section 4.2 confirms the adequacy
of allocated employment land at Manston Business Park, which the Applicant recognise has
suffered from slow take up despite its proximity to the airport and its flag ship status. TDC’s
Local Impact Report (paragraph 4.2.5) confirms that TDC does not believe that the
Applicant has justified its proposals for commercial development on the Northern Grass
Land, particularly when TDC has made adequate provision for employment development
elsewhere.
3. The most recent TDC Draft Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report of 3
October 20191 maintains TDC’s position.
4. As you will be aware, any airport development which would lead to an increase of carbon
(and other GHGs) emissions must be rigorously scrutinised. The Airports Commission
identified four key areas relevant to the assessment of the carbon impact of airport
expansion:
a. increased airport capacity leading to a net change in air travel;
b. airside ground movements and airport operations;
c. changes in non-aviation transport patterns brought about by a scheme’s surface
access strategy; andd. construction of new facilities and surface access infrastructure2 (emphasis
added).
5. There is likely to be significant increase of carbon (and other GHGs) emissions arising from
the construction of new facilities known as Works Nos 15,16 and 17 (if built) and surface
access infrastructure.
6. The extraordinary scale of the Applicant’s proposed business park will have far-reaching
environmental consequences and if the new facilities known as Works Nos 15,16 and 17 are to be included in any DCO that might be granted in due course the environmental
implications must also be assessed and rigorously scrutinised as part of this DCO's Examination .
7. The Applicant has failed to satisfactorily quantify the increase of carbon (and other GHGs)
emissions from the new facilities known as Works Nos 15,16 and 17.
1 https://www.thanet.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SA-Report_Final-issue_20191003.pdf 2 Airports Commission, Final Report (dated July 2015)
2
8. The Applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the new facilities known as
Works Nos 15,16 and 17 would not have a material impact on the Government’s ability to
meet the Net Zero target, and therefore, the new facilities known as Works Nos 15,16 and
17 cannot be included in any DCO that might be granted.
3
Five10Twelve Limited Marlowe Innovation Centre, Marlowe Way
Ramsgate, Kent, CT12 6FA
The Rt Hon Grant Shapps
The Secretary of State for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR
United Kingdom
BY EMAIL:
31 January 2020
Dear Sir
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION
We write in response to the Secretary of State’s Request for Comments and Further Information of
17 January 2020 specifically at Paragraph 23.
We respectfully submit the attached document from the Environmental Law Foundation with
supporting legal Opinion from Gethin Thomas of 39 Essex Chambers as further information to our
letter of 17 October 2019, Section 2.5, pages 9-11.
Yours faithfully
Enclosure: ELF - Manston Airport Submissions - Climate Change - GT 30 01 20 v3
1
Planning Act 2008 and The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010
Application by RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited (“the Applicant”) for an Order granting
Development Consent for the reopening and development of Manston Airport in Kent.
RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT’S REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
AND FURTHER INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
FOUNDATION (“ELF”)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) is a pro-bono legal charity that was set up in 1992
to assist local communities and individuals with environmental, public interest concerns;
helping to address the imbalance of resources and access to experts available to local
communities. ELF takes enquiries direct from members of the public, receiving
approximately 250 enquiries a year. Last year we received numerous enquiries from
communities across the UK who were concerned by their local airport’s plans for expansion.
When ELF receives a pulse of similar enquiries as we did last year, we try to bring a more
strategic approach to the subject matter, rather than treating all enquiries separately. As such
we decided that there was a need for a community outreach event on regional airport
expansion. This was held on the 28th November at 39 Essex Chambers where we heard from
solicitors, barristers, NGOs, and community groups who could share legal information with
other community groups, Parish Council’s etc. ELF takes an on-going interest in the
environmental impacts of airport expansion, such proposals as are occurring on an
unprecedented scale currently across the UK. Samara and Jason Jones-Hall were speakers at
the ELF event, focusing on their experience of participating in the first DCO for airport
expansion, putting in detailed representations as Five10Twelve Limited. As lay people
participating in the first regional airport DCO for Manston Airport, their experience was of
great interest to attendees. ELF has been looking for further ways to support Samara and
Jason Jones-Hall including providing this document as part of their submission.
2
2. This response to the Department of Transport’s (“DfT”) written request for comments and
further information, dated 17 January 2020. ELF will focus on the issue of climate change,
raised at paragraph 22 and by Five10Twelve Limited at paragraph 23 of that request.
3. In summary, the ELF is extremely concerned by the very real risk that if the Climate Change
and GHG emissions targets put forwards by the Manston Airport Development Consent Order
(“DCO”) Applicant (“the Applicant”) are accepted here, there will be wide-ranging
implications in due course, as other airports also seek to expand through DCO processes. It is
ELF’s position that the Applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the scheme
would not have a material impact on the Government’s ability to meet the Net Zero
target, and therefore, the increase in carbon emissions is, in and of itself, a sufficient reason to
refuse development consent.
B. CLIMATE CHANGE AND AVIATION: THE CONTEXT
Background
4. By way of a very brief summary, greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), including carbon dioxide
(CO2), occur naturally in the atmosphere, and provide a blanket that traps heat from the sun,
warming the Earth. Climate change is being caused by the release of additional GHGs from
human activity, trapping more heat, and leading to a rise in global temperature.1
5. In the judicial review claim of the Secretary of State for Transport's Airports National Policy
Statement (“ANPS”) designating a third runway at Heathrow as the preferred scheme for
meeting the need for new airport capacity in southeast England, R. (on the application of
Spurrier & ors) v Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWHC 1070 (Admin) (“the
Heathrow JR”),2 Hickinbottom LJ and Holgate J summarised the mechanics of the climate
change crisis in the following terms:
(i) the concentration of GHGs in the earth's atmosphere is directly linked to
average global temperatures;
(ii) the concentration of GHGs has been rising steadily – and, with it, mean
global temperatures – since the start of the Industrial Revolution and;
(iii) the most abundant GHG, accounting for at least two-thirds of all GHGs, is
carbon dioxide (CO2) which is largely the product of burning fossil fuels.3
1 As well as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and fluorinated gases. 2 Appeal pending. 3 At para 559.
3
6. Specifically, the planet's average surface temperature has risen more than 2 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century.4 Temperatures have increased
significantly in the last 35 years. Indeed, the past five years have been the warmest of the last
140 years, since record keeping began in 1880. Earth's global surface temperatures in 2019
were the second warmest on record, and with only the temperatures recorded in 2016 being
higher. This increase in temperature has been driven mostly by increased emissions into the
atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by human activities.5
Global warming is therefore accelerating at an obviously alarming rate.
7. Rising temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean are contributing to the continued mass loss
from Greenland and Antarctica and to increases in extreme weather events, such as heat
waves, wildfires, intense precipitation.6 Indeed, in the Heathrow JR, the Divisional Court
recognised that:
The increase in global temperature has resulted in (amongst other things) sea level
change; a decline in glaciers, the Antarctic ice sheet and Arctic sea ice; alterations to
various ecosystems; and in some areas a threat to food and water supplies. It is
potentially catastrophic.7 (emphasis added)
8. The catastrophic effects of climate change are already being felt. The number of climate-
related disasters has tripled in the last 30 years.8 A study recently published in a peer-
reviewed journal has observed that the continuous increase in atmospheric CO2
concentrations in the past four decades is positively and significantly associated with the
notable global increase in the frequency of intense flood and storm events. The authors of the
study forecast that the number of climate disasters could double in less than 21 years, and thus
4 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record (GISTEMP v4) (dated 15 January 2020): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (last accessed 30 January 2020). Please see also: National Centres for Climate Change Information, Global Climate Change Indicators: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php (last accessed 30 January 2020); University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, Temperature Data: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ (last accessed 30 January 2020); NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (last accessed 30 January 2020). 5 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record (GISTEMP v4) (dated 15 January 2020): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (last accessed 30 January 2020). 6 Ibid. 7 At para 559. 8 Oxfam International, 5 natural disasters that beg for climate action: https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-natural-disasters-beg-climate-action (last accessed 30 January 2020).
4
severely damage the environment, socioeconomic progress, and welfare of millions of people
worldwide.9
Aviation emissions
9. Aviation is a significant source of carbon emissions. Direct emissions from aviation account
for about 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions and more than 2% of global
emissions.10 The main pollutants emitted by aircraft engines are: carbon dioxide (CO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur oxides (SOX), unburnt hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide
(CO), particulate matter (PM) and soot. Airport surface access transport movements (by cars
and buses, for example), as well as airside ground movements and airport operations, further
increase the overall GHGs emissions from aviation.
10. Moreover, in addition to the emission of GHG’s, aircraft exhausts also emit condensation
trails, consisting of water vapor, which are also likely to play a further significant role in
global warming, by trapping heat radiating from the Earth’s surface.11 Accordingly, it is
important to bear in mind that aviation has climate warming effects beyond carbon emissions.
11. GHGs from commercial aviation are rapidly increasing. If the global aviation sector were
treated as a nation, it would have been the sixth-largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from energy consumption in 2015.12
12. UK carbon emissions from aviation have almost doubled since 1990.13 By 2020, global
international aviation emissions are projected to be around 70% higher than in 2005 and the
International Civil Aviation Organization (“ICAO”) forecasts that by 2050 they could grow
by a further 300-700%.14
9 Ramon E. Lopez Vinod Thomas Pablo A. Troncoso, “Impacts of Carbon Dioxide Emissions on Global Intense Hydrometeorological Disasters”, Climate Disaster and Development Journal, (Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2020) (available online here: https://www.cddjournal.org/article/view/vol04-iss1-3 (last accessed 30 January 2020)). 10 European Commission, Reducing Emissions from Aviation: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation_en (last accessed 30 January 2020). 11 Lisa Bock and Ulrike Burkhardt, Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, “Contrail cirrus radiative forcing for future air traffic” Atmos. Chem. Phys., (19, 8163–8174, 2019), available online here: https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/8163/2019/ (last accessed 30 January 2020)a. 12 International Council for Clean Transportation, CO2 emissions from commercial aviation, 2018 (dated September 2019), available online here: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_CO2-commercl-aviation-2018_20190918.pdf (last accessed 30 January 2020). 13 Airports Commission: Final Report (dated July 2015), p 66, para Figure 2.12. 14 European Aviation Safety Agency, Emissions: https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/topics/overview-aviation-sector/emissions (last accessed 30 January 2020).
5
13. UK aviation currently accounts for around 7% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions,
but its share of emissions is likely to continue to increase as other sectors, such as energy and
manufacturing, decarbonise more quickly. This means that aviation could represent a 25%
share of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.15
14. Accordingly, any airport development which would lead to an increase of carbon (and other
GHGs) emissions must be rigorously scrutinised. The Airports Commission identified four
key areas relevant to the assessment of the carbon impact of airport expansion:
a. increased airport capacity leading to a net change in air travel;
b. airside ground movements and airport operations;
c. changes in non-aviation transport patterns brought about by a scheme’s surface access
strategy; and
d. construction of new facilities and surface access infrastructure.16
The Climate Change Act 2008
15. In 2008, the UK implemented a legislative framework for it to achieve its long-term goals of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure steps are taken towards adapting to the
impact of climate change:17 the Climate Change Act 2008 (“the CCA 2008”) and the Planning
Act 2008 (“the PA 2008”).
16. The relevant features of CCA 2008 are as follows:
a. It established a Committee on Climate Change ("the CCC"), an independent public
body to advise the UK and devolved Governments and Parliaments on tackling
climate change, including on matters relating to the UK's statutory carbon reduction
target for 2050 and the treatment of GHGs from international aviation (pursuant to
section 32).
b. It set a mandatory target for the reduction of UK carbon emissions, as enacted, to
ensure that the net carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the
1990 baseline (pursuant to section 1).18 The Secretary of State for BEIS has the power
to amend that percentage, subject to certain conditions (section 2(1)). As discussed
15 HM Government, Aviation 2050 (December 2018(, para 1.24. 16 Airports Commission, Final Report (dated July 2015). 17 Climate Change Act 2008, Explanatory Notes, para 3. 18 As observed by the Divisional Court in the Heathrow JR (EWHC 1070 (Admin)), at para 566: the statutory target of a reduction in carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 was amended during the passage of the Bill, as a result of Parliament's response to the international commitment to keep the global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels in 2050.
6
further below, that target was so amended on 27 June 2019, so that it is now the duty
of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is
at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline (“the Net Zero target”).19
c. Section 1 sets a target that relates to carbon only. Section 24 enables the Secretary of
State for BEIS to set targets for other GHGs.
d. The Secretary of State is also required to set for each succeeding period of five years,
at least 12 years in advance, an amount for the net UK carbon account ("the carbon
budget") (pursuant to sections 5(1)(b) and 8); and ensure that the net UK carbon
account for any period does not exceed that budget (section 4). Only domestic flights
are currently covered by carbon budgets.
e. Section 10(2) sets out various matters which are required to be taken into account
when the Secretary of State for BEIS sets, or the CCC advises upon, any carbon
budget, including:
(a) scientific knowledge about climate change;
(b) technology about climate change;
(c) economic circumstances, and in particular the likely impact of the
decision on the economy and the competitiveness of particular sectors of the
economy;
(d) fiscal circumstances, and in particular the likely effect of the decision on
taxation, public spending and public borrowing;
(e) social circumstances, and in particular the likely impact of the decision
on fuel poverty;
(f) …
(h) circumstances at European and international level;
(i) the estimated amount of reportable emissions from international aviation
and international shipping… (emphasis added)
17. The effect section 10(2)(i) is, as the Divisional Court explained in the Heathrow JR, that
although for the purposes of the CCA 2008 emissions from GHGs from international aviation
do not generally count as emissions from UK sources (pursuant to section 30(1)), in relation
to any carbon budget, the Secretary of State for BEIS and CCC must take such emissions into
19 Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 SI No 1056, art.2(2) (June 27, 2019).
7
account.20 The CCC has recommended that the CCA 2008 be amended so as to take account
of international aviation emissions.21
18. The PA 2008 established a "development consent" procedure for "Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Projects" defined to include certain "airport-related development", which
includes the construction or alteration of an airport that is expected to be capable of providing
air passenger services for at least 10m passengers per year (sections 14 and 23).
19. The Manston Airport application is the first ever airport in the UK to apply to be considered
as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and to go through the DCO process.
Heathrow, Gatwick, and Luton are likely to follow, as well as, potentially, Stansted.
The Net Zero target and aviation emissions
20. The Paris Agreement, an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) was adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015, following
the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC. The UK ratified the Paris Agreement on
17 November 2016. In the recitals to the Paris Agreement, the parties ‘[recognised] the need
for an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change on the basis
of the best available scientific knowledge’.
21. The Paris Agreement’s key aim is to improve the global response to the threat of climate
change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels, and moreover, to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even
further to 1.5 degrees Celsius (as prescribed in Article 2).
22. Article 4(1) states that ‘in order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article
2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible…’.
Article 4(2) requires parties to ‘prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally
determined contributions that it intends to achieve.’ Article 4(3) states that each party’s
‘successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the
Party's then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible
ambition…’ (emphasis added).
20 EWHC 1070 (Admin), para 571. 21 Meeting the UK aviation target – options for reducing emissions to 2050 (dated December 2009), available online here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/meeting-the-uk-aviation-target-options-for-reducing-emissions-to-2050/ (last accessed 30 January 2020).
8
23. In May 2019, the CCC recommended that, in order to ensure that the UK’s nationally
determined contribution reflects its highest possible ambition, the UK should set a net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions target for 2050.22 Following this advice, as noted above, the CCA
2008 was amended to make the target law on 27 June 2019.23
24. The Government recognised that ‘international aviation and shipping have a crucial role to
play in reaching net zero emissions globally’,24 and has made clear that its plans for net zero
emissions cover the whole of the economy, including emissions from international aviation
and shipping. The Government has indicated an intention to legislate to that effect.25
25. The CCC had previously recommended carbon budgets be on an appropriate path towards a
2050 target that allows room for international aviation emissions, with the aim of achieving
an overall 80% reduction by 2050 (the pre-Net Zero target). In 2015, the CCC concluded that
sensible planning assumptions was for international aviation emissions in 2050 to return to
their 2005 level. This followed the CCC’s earlier advice in its 2009 report, Meeting the UK
aviation target – options for reducing emissions to 2050, that UK aviation emissions should
be kept below its 2005 level, which was 37.5MtCO2.26
26. In 2018, the Government acknowledged that it is not likely to be on track to meet this target:
DfT’s October 2017 aviation forecasts give CO2 emissions from UK departing flights
of between 36.6 and 45.7Mt in 2030; between 36.3 and 45.1Mt in 2040; and between
35.0 and 44.3Mt in 2050, depending on demand scenario and airport capacity
options.27
22 Committee on Climate Change, Net Zero – The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming (dated 2 May 2019), available online here: (last accessed 30 January 2020). 23 Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 SI No 1056, art.2(2) (June 27, 2019). 24 Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 SI No 1056, art.2(2) (June 27, 2019), Explanatory Notes, para 10.5. 25 The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Mr Greg Clark, stated that ‘We have followed the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and our plans for net zero cover the whole economy, including international aviation and shipping. We await the committee’s advice on how to legislate.’ Hansard HC (12 June 2019) Volume 661 Column 682 Net Zero Emissions Target. 26 Climate Change Committee, Fifth Carbon Budget Report (dated November 2015), p 53 available online here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Committee-on-Climate-Change-Fifth-Carbon-Budget-Report.pdf. (last accessed 30 January 2020); Meeting the UK aviation target – options for reducing emissions to 2050 (dated December 2009), available online here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/meeting-the-uk-aviation-target-options-for-reducing-emissions-to-2050/ (last accessed 30 January 2020). 27 Clare Perry (then Minister of State (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) (Energy and Clean Growth)), Aviation: Exhaust Emissions: Written question – 120954 (8 January 2018), available online here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-12-21/120954 (last accessed 30 January 2020).
9
27. In assessing capacity for airport expansion in the south-east, the Airports Commission
integrated the CCC’s planning assumption into its approach to forecasting aviation demand. It
therefore focused on the 37.5MtCO2 target. It also developed two sets of forecasts: (i) one
assuming that emission reductions will be made where they are most desirable or efficient
across the global economy, with these forecasts assuming that carbon emissions from flights
departing UK airports are traded at the European level until 2030 and then as part of a global
carbon market, described as a ‘carbon-traded scenario’, and (ii) one with a firm aviation
emissions cap in place of 37.5 MtCO2.
28. Notwithstanding that the Airports Commission considered in its Final Report that the ‘future
reality is most likely to lie somewhere between the two’ scenarios,28 the Government’s Clean
Growth Strategy (published in October 2017) relied upon the first ‘carbon-traded scenario’. It
considered that, on the assumptions of that scenario, it may be possible to meet the 2050
target under the CCA 2008 domestically if aviation emissions are 44 MtCO2. The
Government did, however, make clear that it had not reached a final view on the appropriate
level of international aviation and shipping emissions in 2050.29
29. The DfT’s UK Aviation Forecasts (dated 24 October 2017), referred to above, specifically
estimated that:
a. The total baseline emissions for the UK would be between 35.0 and 42.1 MtCO2.
This baseline obviously does not include Manston Airport, nor does it include any
other airport expansion.
b. If the Heathrow North West Runway scheme is implemented, the total UK emissions
would be between 38.1 and 44.1 MtCO2.
30. Accordingly, on the Government’s projections, the 37.5 MtCO2 target may well be breached
without airport expansion, and would be breached by the implementation of the Heathrow
scheme alone. Moreover, the possible 44 MtCO2 limit may well also be breached without
more than the implementation of the Heathrow scheme.
31. However, and in any event, the 37.5 MtCO2 target was set in order to achieve the then target
under section 1 of the CCA 2008: a reduction of emissions by 80% by 2050. It has now been
28 Airports Commission, Final Report (dated July 2015). 29 HM Government, Clean Growth Strategy (dated 12 October 2017), available online here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700496/clean-growth-strategy-correction-april-2018.pdf.
10
superseded by the implementation of the Net Zero target, and is therefore out of date. This is a
change of fundamental importance, and is considered in further detail below in respect of the
Applicant’s proposed GHG emissions targets.
32. Lord Deben, the Chairman of the CCC, has written to the Secretary of State (dated 24
September 2019), in order to address the implications of the implemented Net Zero target for
international aviation emissions. The CCC has advised that demand growth must be limited to
25%.30 The CCC’s scenarios from its net zero advice suggest that:
aviation emissions could be reduced from 36.5 MtCO2 in 2017 to around 30 MtCO2
in 2050 through a combination of fuel efficiency improvements, limited use of
sustainable biofuels, and by managing demand growth. Major technological
breakthroughs in commercial aviation are unlikely to make a significant difference to
emissions by 2050 given long development and certification lead times, and slow
turnover of the fleet.31
33. Professor Jim Watson, in the UK Net-Zero Advisory Group to the Committee on Climate
Change Chair’s Final Report, has also emphasised the importance of a lower carbon emission
target for aviation emissions:
The further ambition scenario includes a reduction in aviation emissions when
compared to the previous CCC scenario for meeting the 80% emissions reduction
target. This previous scenario includes passenger demand growth of 60% from 2005
levels, which would be offset by improvements in airframe and engine technology and
some use of biofuels. Demand has already increased by approximately 30% since
2005, so this means a further 25% growth in demand from current levels. The further
ambition scenario includes additional biofuels and the introduction of hybrid electric
aircraft in the 2040s…
Whilst the CCC are right to be cautious on the timescale for replacing fossil fuels
with biofuels and electrification, some advisory group members felt that the
assumptions for the aviation sector do not represent a fair share of the reductions
required for net zero. Allowing 31 MtCO�e of aviation emissions in 2050 stands out
30 This letter is cited in the DfT’s request for comments and further information, para 22. It is available online here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Letter-from-Lord-Deben-to-Grant-Shapps-IAS.pdf (last accessed 30 January). 31 Annex, p 9: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Letter-from-Lord-Deben-to-Grant-Shapps-IAS.pdf (last accessed 30 January).
11
if most other sectors are required to reduce emissions to very low levels to achieve
net zero. This reinforces a need to support low and zero carbon innovations in the
aviation sector, and to explore how demand growth can be limited further so that it is
below the CCC’s trajectory. (emphasis added)
The emerging UK Aviation Strategy
34. The UK’s aviation strategy is currently in development. Insofar as is relevant, the Aviation
2050 Consultation Paper (December 2018),32 explains that, in order to implement the
government’s long term vision and pathway for addressing UK aviation’s impact on climate
change, the government also proposes to (at para 3.96):
Require planning applications for capacity growth to provide a full assessment of
emissions, drawing on all feasible, cost-effective measures to limit their climate
impact, and demonstrating that their project will not have a material impact on the
government’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets
35. Whilst this is only an emerging draft policy, the Government’s obligation to meet its carbon
reduction targets is enshrined in the CCA 2008.
C. ASSESSING THE APPLICATION’S CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Principles of assessment
36. There are three main principles that must be inform the assessment of the application’s
climate change impacts:
a. First, the issue of the impact of the application on climate change must now be re-
visited at the DCO stage on the basis of the up to date scientific position, taking
account of government policy and changes to the law.
b. Secondly, carbon emissions may, in and of itself, be a reason for a refusal of
development consent, if it impacts the Government’s ability to meet its carbon
reduction targets.
32 Cm 9714.
12
c. Thirdly, the climate change impacts of the application cannot be assessed in a
vacuum, but must be considered against the planned airport expansions across the
UK.
37. First, in the Heathrow JR, the Divisional Court made clear that the up to date scientific
position in respect to climate change would be re-visited at the DCO stage of the Heathrow
scheme (at para 648):
In our view, given the statutory scheme in the CCA 2008 and the work that was being
done on if and how to amend the domestic law to take into account the Paris
Agreement, the Secretary of State did not arguably act unlawfully in not taking into
account that Agreement when preferring the NWR Scheme and in designating the
ANPS as he did. As we have described, if scientific circumstances change, it is open
to him to review the ANPS; and, in any event, at the DCO stage this issue will be re-
visited on the basis of the then up to date scientific position.
38. The Divisional Court also observed (at para 631(v)) that:
The assessment of the impact of carbon emissions at the stage of development consent
will clearly include emissions from aircraft using Heathrow in flight.
39. Indeed, the opportunity for further scrutiny of the climate change impacts at a the DCO stage
was partly why the Divisional Court dismissed the climate change ground. Moreover, it must
be borne in mind that the judgment was handed down on 1 May 2019, before the publication
of the CCC’s Net Zero advice, and the subsequent implementation of the Net Zero target.
Accordingly, assessing the application’s impact of climate change is an important facet of the
DCO process.
40. Secondly, the carbon emissions may, in and of itself, be a reason for a refusal of development
consent, if it impacts the Government’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets. The duty
under section 1 of the CCA 2008 is overarching. Moreover, the Airports National Policy
Statement made clear that:
Expansion must be deliverable within national targets on greenhouse gas emissions…
Any increase in carbon emissions alone is not a reason to refuse development
consent, unless the increase in carbon emissions resulting from the project is so
13
significant that it would have a material impact on the ability of Government to meet
its carbon reduction targets, including carbon budgets….33
41. As such, if the increase in carbon emissions resulting from the project would have a material
impact on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets, then that is so
significant that development consent may be refused. Expansion cannot be deliverable if it
would result in the breach of national targets on GHGs.
42. Finally, it is critical that the climate change impacts of the application are assessed against the
current planned airport expansions in the UK, for at least two reasons: (i) the carbon
emissions impact of the application on the ability of the Government to meet its national
targets has to be assessed with those expansions in mind (particularly Heathrow), and (ii) this
is the first DCO process for an airport expansion, and will be likely to be followed by others.
As such, this approach to the assessment of climate change will provide an invokable
precedent.
43. It is notable that the CCC observed that:
The Government should assess its airport capacity strategy in the context of net zero.
Specifically, investments will need to be demonstrated to make economic sense in a
net-zero world and the transition towards it. Current planned additional airport
capacity in London, including the third runway at Heathrow, is likely to leave at most
very limited room for growth at non-London airports.34 (emphasis added)
44. This conclusion is consistent with the DfT’s aviation forecasts of 2017, referred to be above.
Therefore, and as further considered below, this Application may be scrutinised against that
context.
D. THE APPLICATION
33 DfT, Airports National Policy Statement (5 June 2018), paras 2.18 and 5.82. Available online here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714106/airports-nps-new-runway-capacity-and-infrastructure-at-airports-in-the-south-east-of-england-web-version.pdf (last accessed 30 January 2020). It is important to note that the DfT’s modelling was based on the expansion plans set out in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. 34 Annex, p 14: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Letter-from-Lord-Deben-to-Grant-Shapps-IAS.pdf (last accessed 30 January).
14
45. Chapter 16 of the Applicant’s Environmental Statement addresses climate change. However,
it predates the legislative implementation of the Net Zero target in June 2019. Its assessment
is deficient in a number of key respects.
46. The Applicant’s proposed target emission limit has been superseded by the Net Zero
requirement prescribed in the CCA 2008 (at para 16.13.4):
For the future baseline, there is uncertainty regarding UK GHG policy in the
aviation sector which makes setting a definitive target to judge significance against
challenging. Whilst the Airports Commission: Final Report in sets a gross total
emissions cap of 37.5 MtCO2 from the aviation sector by 2050, the Clean Growth
Strategy (2017) suggests that the obligations under the Climate Change Act can be
met if aviation emissions are 44 MtCO2e.
47. As explained above, even on the former 80% target, the Applicant is wrong to invoke and rely
upon the 44 MtCO2 limit. First, it may well be met if the Heathrow North West Runway
scheme was the only airport expansion project implemented by 2050. Secondly, 44 MtCO2 is
also based on assumptions (the carbon-trading scenario described above) that may well not
transpire, as recognised in the Airports Commission report.
48. The Applicant’s own environmental statement suggests that the scheme could not be
implemented without having a material impact on the Government’s ability to meet its former
carbon targets (16.4.25):
It is not possible to prescribe a quantified level of GHG emissions to the site at peak
operation that would be in-line with meeting this target or otherwise as there are too
many other factors that influence the satisfaction of the 80% emissions reduction
target and any associated UK aviation targets…
49. Therefore, even on the former 80% by 2050 requirement, Manston could not establish that it
would not materially impact on the Government’s ability to satisfy it.
50. In any event, critically, the 37.5 MtCO2 (and 44 MtCO2) targets are out of date. These targets
were set in response to the pre-Net Zero requirement. They have been superseded by Net
Zero, and therefore cannot be relied upon by the Applicant. As noted above, it is likely to be
15
necessary to reduce aviation emissions to 30-31 MtCO2 in order to enable the Government to
meet the Net Zero requirement.
51. Notwithstanding that the increased air traffic resulting from the opening of Manston Airport
would be likely to go far beyond the ‘very limited room for growth at non-London airports’35
in order to meet Net Zero, there are a number of particular aspects of the scheme that render it
likely to have a further significant detrimental impact on the Government’s ability to meet the
CCA 2008 requirement:
a. Manston Airport does not have a hydrant fuelling system, unlike many other airports
which rely on fuel pipelines on site. This means that fuel for planes will need to be
moved by fuel tankers on road surface access to be stored on site for use. This will
generate additional GHGs.
b. The only surface access for freight, and for passengers, to and from the new airport (if
built) is by road surface access. Unlike other airports in the south east of England,
there is no rail access. This has the obvious disadvantage of resulting in significant
road vehicle movements, even as compared against other airports.
c. The airport has been closed for nearly 6 years and most infrastructure will need to be
built. As such, there is likely to be significant carbon emissions arising from the
construction of new facilities and surface access infrastructure.
52. Therefore, in all the circumstances, the Applicant has failed to establish that the scheme
would not have a material impact on the Government’s ability to deliver the Net Zero target
by 2050. Therefore, the increase in carbon emissions can, and respectfully should, constitute a
reason for development consent refusal.
E. CONCLUSION: THE WIDER CONSEQUENCES
53. There is significant airport expansion planned across England already. UK airports are
planning to expand almost three times faster than the CCC consider is sustainable. Analysis
undertaken by Sky News of the plans for 21 of the country's biggest airports show they intend
to add 192 million passengers to the 286 million that already use their terminals over the next
35 See para 43 above.
16
10-20 years, which equates to a growth of 67%.36 As explained above, the CCC has advised
that growth must be limited, at the very most, to 25% in order to meet the Net Zero target.
54. It is simply not possible for these planned expansions to all progress if the Government is to
meet Net Zero. This application must be carefully considered against that context. Due to the
particulars of this scheme, summarised above, Manston Airport is especially at risk of
materially impacting the Government’s ability to meet Net Zero.
Gethin Thomas
Emma Montlake
Environmental Law Foundation
30 January 2020
36 https://news.sky.com/story/uk-airport-expansion-plans-make-2050-climate-change-target-unlikely-11836533.
Five10Twelve Limited Marlowe Innovation Centre, Marlowe Way
Ramsgate, Kent, CT12 6FA
The Planning Inspectorate Kite Wing Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN BY EMAIL: [email protected]
31 January 2020 Dear Sir REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION We write in response to the Secretary of State’s Request for Comments and Further Information of 17 January 2020 speci�ically at Paragraph 23. We respectfully submit further information as follows:
1. Five10Twelve Ltd is an Interested Party
2. Our letter of 17 October 2019 detailed at paragraph 2.5, pages 9, concerns relating to the need
for the Applicant to demonstrate cost-ef�iciency and sustainability, speci�ically: 2.1. Notwithstanding the fact that the Airports National Policy Statement (“ANPS”) does not
directly have an effect, it is important to note that with regards to airport development, the ANPS states:
“The �inal business plan will include details of the future capital expenditure that the licensee proposes to incur” (paragraph 4.37, ANPS) and “The applicant should demonstrate in its application for development consent that its scheme is cost-ef�icient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (paragraph 4.39, ANPS)
3. The Applicant’s Capital Expenditure was presented during the Examination as an appendix to the Applicant’s responses to the Examining Authority’s (“ExA”), First Written Questions ( REP3-187 ) at page 1064 and is attached herewith in our Appendix A .
3.1. The Applicant’s “Business Plan” takes the form of a rudimentary Pro�it and Loss Forecast (“P&L”), with updated version submitted at Appendix to the Summary of Applicant’s Oral Submissions at the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing on 04 June 2019, ( REP8-011 ), and is attached herewith in our Appendix B .
3.2. We respectfully submit that the Applicant’s Capital Expenditure (“CapEx”) and P&L as
presented do not in any way constitute detailed costings. No �igures have been provided for individual budget lines nor any other breakdowns other than the four construction phases in the CapEx.
3.3. As such, it is not possible to ascertain whether any individual budget lines listed in the CapEx has been appropriately costed or whether appropriate sums have been allocated to ensure the proposed development is “cost-ef�icient and sustainable” or that any measures have been put in place to ensure costs associated with the most sustainable approaches to construction and/or development have been considered.
4. Our letter of 17 October 2019 further detailed at paragraph 2.5, pages 10-11, concerns relating to the lack of inclusion of the Applicant’s estimated aviation emissions in the UK Aviation Forecasts and the impact of the Applicant’s proposal on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets. 4.1. We note that whilst already-established UK airports operated by experienced and
established operators are increasingly budgeting for measures to reduce or offset carbon emissions - for example Doncaster Shef�ield Airport’s announcement that it is to install a £2m solar farm - no such carbon offsetting measures or schemes appear to 1
have been budgeted in either the Applicant’s CapEx or in its P&L costings.
5. Our letter of 17th October 2020 detailed at paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 concerns relating to the Applicant’s good standing, corporate structure and repeated failures to demonstrate and/or evidence of funding and/or funders throughout the DCO Examination. This is pertinent since - notwithstanding the ANPS does not directly have an effect - the ANPS states at Paragraph 4.5 that: “The Secretary of State will have regard to the manner in which bene�its are secured and the level of con�idence in their delivery ”. (Bold added for emphasis).
6. Whilst the Applicant has continued to refer to an unspeci�ied “consortium” and un-named and
unevidenced investors as “backers”, we respectfully remind the Secretary of State of recent issues concerning Seaborne Freight and the lack of con�irmed evidence of any “backers” or “funders” that led to the collapse of the Seaborne Freight contract at substantial public cost.
6.1. As the Secretary of State will be aware, both Seaborne Freight and the Department for
Transport had described Arklow Shipping as Seaborne Freight’s “backer” on the basis of expressions of interest. In the Seaborne case, this was also evidenced - which is clearly not the case with this DCO Applicant.
1 Press Release: Peel L&P, July 2 2019 http://www.peelenergy.co.uk/latest/2019/7/2/doncaster-sheffield-airport-to-slash-emissions-with-2m-solar-far m Last accessed 31/1/20. (Also attached at Appendix C )
6.2. The well-publicised cancellation of Seaborne’s contract was widely reported as being
due to Arklow’s withdrawal, with Arklow Shipping later con�irming:
“.. it was never a ‘backer’ or had ‘any formal agreement’ with Seaborne, nor was it a contract partner”. 2
7. Conclusion
7.1. As detailed at paragraphs 3-4, above - the Applicant has not “secured” any bene�its as
regards carbon off-setting or mitigation of GHG emissions, nor is it able to provide any “level of con�idence in their delivery” , as detailed in paragraph 6, above.
7.2. As such, we respectfully submit that the DCO must be refused.
2 The Irish Times, Wicklow shipping company ‘had no contract’ with UK no-deal Brexit firm, 11/2/19 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wicklow-shipping-company-had-no-contract-with-uk-no-d eal-brexit-firm-1.3789647 Last accessed 31/1/20. (Also attached at Appendix D ).
Appendix A
Applicant’s Capital Expenditure (REP3-187, Page 1064)
Appendix F.1.6 – Capital Expenditure:
Item DescriptionApproximate
QuantityUnit
Approximate
QuantityUnit
Approximate
QuantityUnit
Approximate
QuantityUnit
CONSTRUCTION
Demolitions of buildings ‐ LumpSum ‐
Runway 10‐28 123,660 m³
Runway Shoulder 41,700 m³
Redundant Runway Pavement 434,500 m³
Taxiways 98,800 m³
Taxiway Shoulder 17,170 m²
Cargo Apron (Phase 1, 2, 3, 4) 96,533 m² 96,533 m² 27,967 m² 27,967 m²
Passenger Apron (Phase 2) ‐ m² 27,600 m²
Recycling Apron (Phase 2, 3, 4) ‐ m² 4,800 m² 4,800 m² 4,800 m²
G.A. Apron (Phase 1, 2, 3) 6,914 m² 2,286 m²
Peri Tracks 28,800 m ‐
FBO Apron 2,500 m² ‐
New Signal Junction ‐ LumpSum
New Ghost island Junction ‐ LumpSum
Staggered Junction ‐ LumpSum
New Roundabout ‐ LumpSum
New Internal Roads (Phase 1, 2, 3) 9,412 m 688 m
Parking / Loading / Storage Areas (Phase 1, 2, 3, 4) 57,226 m² 52,725 m² 52,725 m² 52,725 m²
Landscaping ‐ LumpSum
Approvals Process ‐ ‐
Earthworks ‐ Topsoil Cut 92,500 m³
Eartworks ‐ General On‐Site Cut 475,000 m³
Earthworks ‐ General On‐Site Fill 360,000 m³
Earthworks ‐ Disposal Off Site of Surplus Topsoil 212,500 m³
Earthworks ‐ Disposal Off Site of Surplus Cut Material 95,000 m³
Earthworks ‐ Dispodal Off Site of Contaminated Cut Mat. 90,000 m³
Earthworks ‐ Extra Over for Imported Fill Material 167,500 m³
Drainage 6,500 m
Drainage Items, e.g., interceptors, pumps ‐ LumpSum
Drainage Ponds 26,560 LumpSum
Noise Mitigation Bunding ‐ ‐
Pegwell Bay Outfall Pipeline (Remedial Works to Existing) ‐ LumpSum
Airside AGL ‐ LumpSum
Approach Lighting ‐ LumpSum
Apron High Mast Lighting ‐ LumpSum
Navaid Improvements ‐ DME ‐ LumpSum
Navaid Improvements ‐ ILS ‐ LumpSum
Navaid Improvements ‐ IRVR ‐ LumpSum
Navaid Improvements ‐ NDB(L) ‐ LumpSum
Navaid Improvements ‐ VOR ‐ LumpSum
Navaid Improvements ‐ VCCS ‐ LumpSum
Navaid Improvements ‐ Wind Shear Instrument ‐ LumpSum
Airfield Signage ‐ LumpSum
Utility Diversions ‐ LumpSum
Utility/Substation Upgrade Provisions ‐ LumpSum
Relocation of Existing MOD Aerial ‐ LumpSum
Refurb Existing Radar Station ‐ LumpSum
Fixed Ground Power 19 No.
Control Tower ‐ LumpSum
Fire Station ‐ LumpSum
Fuel Farm ‐ LumpSum
Museum ‐ LumpSum
Business Park ‐ Office Buildings (Phase 1, 2) 6,326 m² 19,949 m²
Business Park ‐ Warehouse Buildings (Phase 1, 2) 48,775 m² 30,050 m²
FBO Hanger 2,048 m² ‐
Business Aviation Centre (Phase 1, 2, 3) 1,127 m²
Recycling Hangar (Phase 2, 3, 4) ‐ m² 3,405 m² 3,405 m² 3,405 m²
Cargo Facility (Part Phase 2, 3, 4) 12,038 m² 19,168 m² 19,168 m² 19,168 m²
2 x Business Aviation Hangars (Part Phases 2, 3, 4) 1,066 m² 4,162 m²
Refurb Existing Terminal Building (Phase 2) ‐ LumpSum ‐ LumpSum
New Terminal Building Extension (Phase 4) ‐ LumpSum ‐ LumpSum
Estimated Cosntruction Costs (₤) 169,026,120 62,765,471 22,913,171 23,430,571
Contingency (₤) 10% 16,902,612 10% 6,276,547 10% 2,291,317 10% 2,343,057
GRAND BUDGET TOTAL (₤) 185,928,732 69,042,018 25,204,488 25,773,628
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4
Appendix F.1.6
Appendix B
Applicant’s P&L (REP8-011)
Narrative for P&L Forecast used in the RSP Business Plan for Manston The P&L has been put together to forecast the likely revenues and costs associated with the operation of the airport over a 20 year period. The basis of the forecast is the traffic forecast provided by Azimuth Associates which details aircraft sizes, carried tonnage, passenger volumes and movements. Aeronautical, Handling and Fuel revenues (net of hydrocarbon costs) have been calculated for both freight and passenger operations. Aeronautical rates assumed are similar to those of other UK regional airports handling cargo and low cost passenger carriers. Handling and Fuelling will be provided by the airport directly (there is a conservative assumption that eCommerce/Integrators will self-handle); the rates for these services are based on knowledge of other airports operations that provide similar services. Passenger Commercial net income is conservatively assumed to be consistent with airports handling low cost passengers around the same volume levels. Property income is derived from the Landside Business Park adjacent to the airport, Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) facilities leasing, Fixed Based Operations (FBO) leasing, Airside Warehouse leasing and Aircraft Parking income. The rates for all of these are set to be comparable to other airport operations in the UK. Direct and Indirect costs have been assumed at levels comparable to other UK airports providing similar services.
Revenues (£000s) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 Y16 Y17 Y18 Y19 Y20Freight Revenue - 16,682 18,552 25,506 26,799 28,927 31,160 32,377 34,440 33,970 35,345 36,759 38,326 39,859 41,734 43,403 45,139 47,122 49,007 50,966 Tonnes - 96,553 108,553 167,092 173,741 181,436 192,908 200,673 216,765 212,351 222,377 234,508 244,690 256,989 270,579 283,904 296,594 312,344 324,838 340,758 Movements - 5,252 5,804 9,700 9,936 10,144 10,872 11,184 11,392 11,600 12,064 12,547 13,048 13,570 14,113 14,678 15,265 15,875 16,510 17,170 Aeronautical Yield (£/MT) 44.82 43.79 44.31 43.83 46.46 49.17 48.26 44.97 46.69 46.08 45.45 45.33 44.89 44.34 43.95 43.75 43.20 43.20 42.83
Passenger Revenue - - 1,573 1,715 1,732 2,288 2,414 2,414 2,414 2,414 2,497 2,583 2,672 2,765 2,862 2,963 3,067 3,176 3,289 3,407 Passengers - - 662,768 679,868 686,672 965,295 975,591 975,591 975,591 975,591 1,011,587 1,049,022 1,087,954 1,128,444 1,170,553 1,214,347 1,259,892 1,307,259 1,356,521 1,407,753 Movements - - 4,932 5,024 5,064 6,702 6,754 6,754 6,754 6,754 6,966 7,186 7,416 7,654 7,902 8,160 8,428 8,707 8,997 9,298 Aeronautical Yield (£/Pax) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
WLU (k) - 966 1,748 2,351 2,424 2,780 2,905 2,982 3,143 3,099 3,235 3,394 3,535 3,698 3,876 4,053 4,226 4,431 4,605 4,815 Aeronautical Yield (£/WLU) 4.48 2.91 3.29 3.28 3.21 3.43 3.41 3.26 3.36 3.32 3.29 3.29 3.27 3.25 3.23 3.22 3.19 3.20 3.18
Freight as % of WLU 100% 62% 71% 72% 65% 66% 67% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 70% 70% 70% 70% 71% 71%Pax as % of WLU 0% 38% 29% 28% 35% 34% 33% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 30% 30% 30% 30% 29% 29%
Pasenger Commercial net income - - 1,988 2,040 2,060 2,896 2,927 2,927 2,927 2,927 3,035 3,147 3,264 3,385 3,512 3,643 3,780 3,922 4,070 4,223 Yield (£/Pax) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Property Income Total - 9,774 10,391 13,577 19,398 22,168 22,613 22,811 22,891 23,477 23,986 25,050 25,615 26,384 27,317 28,143 29,174 30,082 30,757 32,024
TOTAL REVENUE - 26,456 32,504 42,838 49,989 56,279 59,114 60,529 62,672 62,789 64,862 67,538 69,877 72,393 75,424 78,151 81,160 84,302 87,122 90,620
Costs (£000s)Passenger - - 2,651 2,719 2,747 3,861 3,902 3,902 3,902 3,902 4,046 4,196 4,352 4,514 4,682 4,857 5,040 5,229 5,426 5,631 Freight 1,502 6,008 6,590 9,258 9,860 7,859 8,825 9,404 10,933 10,155 10,649 11,075 11,527 11,988 12,676 13,183 13,710 14,376 14,951 15,549 ATS 500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 RFFS 500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Operations 188 750 902 980 987 1,024 1,035 1,042 1,056 1,052 1,064 1,077 1,088 1,101 1,114 1,127 1,139 1,152 1,164 1,177 Maintenance 250 1,000 1,203 1,306 1,316 1,365 1,380 1,389 1,408 1,403 1,419 1,436 1,451 1,468 1,485 1,502 1,518 1,537 1,552 1,569 MT 250 1,000 1,203 1,306 1,316 1,365 1,380 1,389 1,408 1,403 1,419 1,436 1,451 1,468 1,485 1,502 1,518 1,537 1,552 1,569 Site and Freight Security 250 1,000 1,203 1,306 1,316 1,365 1,380 1,389 1,408 1,403 1,419 1,436 1,451 1,468 1,485 1,502 1,518 1,537 1,552 1,569 Operations TOTAL 3,439 13,758 17,752 20,876 21,543 20,838 21,903 22,516 24,116 23,319 24,015 24,656 25,320 26,006 26,928 27,673 28,443 29,368 30,196 31,066
Overheads TOTAL 6,200 6,200 6,865 7,794 7,824 7,967 8,587 8,614 8,694 8,680 8,725 8,799 8,842 8,917 8,967 9,015 9,086 9,137 9,208 9,257
EBITDA (9,639) 6,498 7,887 14,168 20,622 27,475 28,624 29,400 29,862 30,790 32,123 34,083 35,716 37,471 39,530 41,463 43,631 45,797 47,718 50,297 Margin 2% 7% 24% 25% 36% 38% 38% 37% 39% 40% 41% 42% 44% 45% 46% 47% 48% 48% 49%
Appendix C
Press Release, Peel L&P Re: Doncaster Sheffield Solar Farm
DoncasterSheffield Airport
to slashemissions with£2m solar farm
July 2, 2019
Home About Us Energy
Communities News
The Aviation Minister Baroness Vere visited Doncaster Sheffield
Airport (DSA) as its investors the Peel Group today (Monday 1 July)
announced plans to build a £2m solar farm which will generate 25%
of the airport’s energy and drastically reduce its carbon footprint.
Peel Energy is to develop, construct, own and operate the solar
farm which is due to be operational in 2020 and will provide 1.7
MWp of zero carbon energy, saving 220 tonnes of carbon every
year – the equivalent of boiling 2.2m kettles every year.
The development is a key part of the Airport’s 20-year Masterplan
which sees passenger’s numbers soar to 1.45m this year and
forecasted by the airport to double within the next 5 years,
consistent with its market breaking growth over the past five years in
excess of 75%.
The Aviation Minister was also there to witness the Airport sign up
to the Women in Aviation and Aerospace Charter which makes a
commitment to building a more balanced and fair industry for
women. This follows the launch of the airport’s Bright Futures
schools engagement programme that aims to inspire children,
particularly girls, to consider a career in aviation.
Aviation minister Baroness Vere said:
“To bring about real change in transport, we need to do things
differently. From decreasing carbon emissions at airports to
increasing female representation, the aviation industry is acting now
to safeguard our future.
“Today’s investment shows that airports are finding practical ways to
become cleaner and greener, and Doncaster Sheffield’s
commitment to the women in aviation charter is another vote of
confidence in our work to build a fairer sector for all.”
On her visit to the airport the Minister viewed the economic project
being delivered at DSA. Through both aviation and rail DSA is the
catalyst to deliver thousands of new jobs, housing, advanced
Home About Us Energy
Communities News
Contact us
For queries relating to Peel Energy:
Email: [email protected]
Or write to us at:Peel Energy, Peel Dome, Intu Trafford
Centre, TraffordCity, Manchester M17 8PL
Peel Energy Limited | Company No.6335364 | Registered in
England & Wales
The Peel Energy Biodiversity Policy can be downloaded here.
1 Likes
Newer / Older
manufacturing, logistics, community facilities and provide a major
international gateway for the east side of the country.
Robert Hough, Chairman of Doncaster Sheffield Airport said:
“We are pleased that the Aviation Minister recognises our position
as a key part of the solution for the UK’s aviation needs and as a
growth driver for the economy. We are committed to our part in
delivering the opportunity here around DSA which with the right
support from government can start making an impact on people in
the North lives now, not years away.
“Our other announcements made today are vitally important for our
sustainable future, reducing our carbon emissions alongside our
airlines and further committing to women in aviation – both crucial
for the long term and central to our values.”
Share
Home About Us Energy
Communities News
Appendix D
Irish Times, 11/2/19 Re: Arklow Shipping
Simon Carswell Public Affairs Editor
Wicklow shipping company ‘had no contract’ with UK no-dealBrexit firmArklow Shipping had numerous talks about ferry service but had ‘no formal agreement’
Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 13:19 Updated: Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 14:38
An Irish shipping business that the UK government claimed pulled support from a company contracted to provide ferriesin the event of a no-deal Brexit had “no contractual agreement” with the firm, a well-placed source has said.
The British Department of Transport said it had decided to cancel a contract with Seaborne Freight to provide additionalferries across the English Channel to ease post-Brexit pressure on Dover after Arklow Shipping, which it described as thecompany’s “backer”, decided to “step back from the deal.”
The awarding of the £13.8 million (€15.7 million) contract to Seaborne to run ferries from Ramsgate in England toOstend in Belgium caused a storm of controversy when it emerged that the company had no ships and that the terms andconditions on its website appeared borrowed from a food delivery firm.
The Co Wicklow firm declined to comment on the department’s statement when contacted by The Irish Times. However,a source close to the firm said that while it had discussions with Seaborne about providing ships, it was never “a backer”or had “any formal agreement” with Seaborne, nor was it “a contract partner.”
Arklow Shipping, a long-established shipping business owned by the Tyrell family, “stepped away” from further talks withSeaborne “for commercial reasons,” said a source with knowledge of the firm’s dealings with Seaborne.
Arklow Shipping owns and operates a fleet of 55 dry bulk vessels from two bases, its home base in Co Wicklow andRotterdam in the Netherlands.
The company’s managing director James A Tyrell wrote to UK transport secretary Chris Grayling last month, saying thefirm had talks with Seaborne over the previous 12 months. He said it intended to finance the purchase two vessels tooperate a route between Ramsgate and Ostend and to buy a stake in Seaborne.
RELATED
The letter, sent by Mr Tyrell to Mr Grayling on January 18th, was published on social media on Saturday after the UKdepartment released its statement.
“I consider that Seaborne’s plans to deliver a new service to facilitate trade following from the UK’s departure from theEU are both viable and deliverable,” Mr Tyrell told the British secretary in his letter.
“I will be working closely with the team at Seaborne to ensure that they have appropriate support from Arklow Shippingto deliver on their commitments to Her Majesty’s Government.”
The source with knowledge of Arklow’s dealings said that it had “numerous discussions” with Seaborne but that the firm“never came to any formal agreement.”
It was now “puzzled and a bit annoyed” for being blamed for the cancellation of the contract and believed the matter hadbeen “blown out of proportion,” the source said.
Screen Ireland hopes for happy ending despite Brexit sadness
Brussels bids a fond farewell to erstwhile partner on Brexit day
Howlin says Ireland now ‘vulnerable to the capricious politics of Boris Johnson’
Irish News
Funeral ofMcGinley children:Father says ‘now Iknow whatheartbroken reallymeans’
Opinion
Leo Varadkar:‘Thank you to thepeople of Europe’
International
Stander admits heknew Doris’s daywould come as heswitches back tosix
Politics
Men arrested onsuspicion ofconnection with€13m cyber-attackon Malta bank
Bringing thepower of AI tobear in pharma
Ireland at theepicentre of theaviation financeindustry
COBRA: SkyOne’s new politicalthriller series hassome bite
Banish theJanuary blues bybooking a luxuryholiday
MORE FROM THE IRISH TIMES
MORE IN SPONSORED
Facts have no agenda. Real news has value. Subscribe.
READ MORE
EC staff in Northern Ireland taking low-key approach to leaving
Brexit Day: ‘Our time has come’ – what the UK papers say
‘Whatever Brexit turns out to be, we have to be ready to work and succeed’
The Irish Border signs off Twitter: ‘It feels like I won the battle and lost the war’
Brexit should take priority over Irish unity - Corbyn
The company is also said to have reacted with surprise at pro-Brexit Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg questioningwhether the Irish Government encouraged the Wicklow firm to withdraw its support.
Minister of State for European Affairs Helen McEntee said over the weekend there was “absolutely no truth” to Mr Rees-Mogg’s claim.
Arklow Shipping has had no contact with the Government, said the source.
The cancellation of the contract has led to calls from both Conservative and Labour MP for Mr Grayling to step down astransport secretary amid increasing concern within British business community that the UK is not prepared for a no-dealscenario with 46 days until Britain is due to leave the EU.
The Conservative MP and former business minister Anna Soubry said Mr Grayling “should be quietly considering hisposition.”
Labour MP Andy McDonald, the UK’s shadow transport secretary, called on Mr Grayling to resign. “While Theresa Mayneeds the few friends she has right now, we cannot have this incompetent transport secretary heaping humiliation afterhumiliation on our country. He has to go,” he said.
BrexitDeal or No Deal: countdown to Brexit continues as the deadline for crashing out of Europe fastapproaches. See more here.
2:09
Five10Twelve Limited Marlowe Innovation Centre, Marlowe Way
Ramsgate, Kent, CT12 6FA
Manston Airport Case Team
The Planning Inspectorate
Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
BY EMAIL:
31 January 2020
Dear Sir
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION
We write in response to the Secretary of State’s Request for Comments and Further Information of
17 January 2020 specifically at Paragraph 15.
“15. The Secretary of State seeks the views of the Applicant, Thanet District Council (who
would have responsibility under any made DCO of discharging such a Requirement) and
other Interested Parties in relation to the definition of “airport related” in article 2 for
inclusion in any DCO that might be granted in due course. This would read:
““airport-related” development means development directly related to and required to support
operations at Manston Airport including, but not limited to freight distribution centres,
including freight forwarding and temporary storage facilities.”
1. Five10Twelve Limited is an Interested Party.
2. Section 115(1) of the PA2008 is clear that there are only two categories of development for
which development consent may be granted. These are (a) development for which
development consent is required, or (b) associated development.
3. Under the PA2008, only development that has the requisite effect referred to in section
23(5)(b) which is “to increase by at least 10,000 per year the number of air transport
movements of air cargo movements for which the airport is capable of providing air cargo
services” could be classified as the principal development.
4. Any development that does not have this requisite effect is therefore not part of the
principal development.
5. We respectfully reiterate that the list of the NSIP Development Works (1-11 and 13) does
not comply with the requirements of Section 23(5)(b) of the PA2008.
6. We respectfully remind the Secretary of State for Transport that as stated in the April 2013
Department for Communities and Local Government Guidance, associated development
“requires a direct relationship between associated development and the principal
development” . 1
7. Further, the Applicant must ensure that the impacts of all relevant development are
assessed, including any associated development . 2
8. In addition, the DCLG Guidance states the Applicant should ensure that there is sufficient
information to deal with any relevant European environmental requirements . 3
9. The Applicant has not:
(a) provided a definitive list of associated development
(b) ensured that the impacts of any associated development are assessed; and
(c) provided sufficient information to deal with any relevant European environmental
requirements.
10. Therefore under the DCLG guidance the definition of “airport related” in article 2 for
inclusion in any DCO that might be granted in due course simply cannot be a wide shopping
list of unquantified, unspecified, unmeasured and unassessed associated developments.
1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192681/Planning_Act_2008_-_Guidance_on_associated_development_applications_for_major_infrastructure_projects.pdf 2 Ibid 3 Principally under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EC), the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the legislation transposing the requirements of those directives.
2
11. The definition of airport related development be amended as follows:
““airport-related” development means development directly related to and required to support
operations at Manston Airport including, but not limited to freight distribution centres,
including freight forwarding and temporary storage facilities . It does not include any
development that has not been cumulatively environmentally assessed ”.
Yours faithfully
3
Five10Twelve Limited Marlowe Innovation Centre, Marlowe Way
Ramsgate, Kent, CT12 6FA
Manston Airport Case Team
The Planning Inspectorate
Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
BY EMAIL:
31 January 2020
Dear Sir
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION
We write in response to the Secretary of State’s Request for Comments and Further Information of
17 January 2020 specifically at Paragraph 14.
“14. The Secretary of State invites the Applicant and other Interested Parties to comment on
revised wording in relation to requirement 19 (airport-related commercial facilities) for
inclusion in any DCO that might be granted in due course: “Works Nos 15,16 and 17 must
only be developed and used where the local planning authority has agreed in writing that
those works have a direct relationship to and support the operation of Works Nos. 1 to 11 and
13”.”
1. Five10Twelve Limited is an Interested Party.
2. Thanet District Council’s (“TDC”) Local Impact Report at Section 4.2 confirms the adequacy
of allocated employment land at Manston Business Park, which the Applicant recognise has
suffered from slow take up despite its proximity to the airport and its flag ship status. TDC’s
Local Impact Report (paragraph 4.2.5) confirms that TDC does not believe that the
Applicant has justified its proposals for commercial development on the Northern Grass
Land, particularly when TDC has made adequate provision for employment development
elsewhere.
3. The most recent TDC Draft Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report of 3
October 2019 maintains TDC’s position. 1
4. As you will be aware, any airport development which would lead to an increase of carbon
(and other GHGs) emissions must be rigorously scrutinised. The Airports Commission
identified four key areas relevant to the assessment of the carbon impact of airport
expansion:
a. increased airport capacity leading to a net change in air travel;
b. airside ground movements and airport operations;
c. changes in non-aviation transport patterns brought about by a scheme’s surface
access strategy; and
d. construction of new facilities and surface access infrastructure (emphasis 2
added).
5. There is likely to be significant increase of carbon (and other GHGs) emissions arising from
the construction of new facilities known as Works Nos 15,16 and 17 (if built) and surface
access infrastructure.
6. The extraordinary scale of the Applicant’s proposed business park will have far-reaching
environmental consequences and if the new facilities known as Works Nos 15,16 and 17 are
to be included in any DCO that might be granted in due course the environmental
implications must also be assessed and rigorously scrutinised as part of this DCO.
7. The Applicant has failed to satisfactorily quantify the increase of carbon (and other GHGs)
emissions from the new facilities known as Works Nos 15,16 and 17 .
8. The Applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the new facilities known as
Works Nos 15,16 and 17 (if built) would not have a material impact on the Government’s
1 https://www.thanet.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SA-Report_Final-issue_20191003.pdf 2 Airports Commission, Final Report (dated July 2015)
2
ability to meet the Net Zero target, and therefore, the new facilities known as Works Nos
15,16 and 17 cannot be included in any DCO that might be granted.
Yours faithfully
3
